Things take a little more time when you're not doing really obvious sales. I don't have any nudity in my videos, or anything close to it, and I don't have shootouts or explosions or car chases ... There aren't a bunch of drugs in the videos and I am not wearing hot pants, and I don't dance. So, as far as videos or anything visually is concerned, I'm not a very visually stimulating artist.
I think it's important as a player every now and again to play something that's influenced you as an artist just to expose the people to it.
I wanted to do comic books... as a comic book artist, as an illustrator. But I'm not very good so I thought I should do something else! So I went to a film school when I was seventeen and came out when I was nineteen.
Every artist usually has one or two songs that really define their careers.
Artists were nurtured back in the '70s. Their music was developed by the record companies.
The more far-out artists, the better.
A writer or any suffering artist-to-be is just an instrument too finely set to the human condition [...]
A lot of artists start out as failed poets, then move on to being failed short-story writers before they finally break through to the big time and become failed novelists.
I have to plead basic ignorance of most new jazz artists here.
I've never met an artist whose spirit didn't want to fly.
I think the real problem is that nobody buys albums anymore, so you don't get the depth of the artists that are out today. What you get is whatever they felt is politically correct to get on there and actually make some impact. I think that's where you're losing your depth. You're only getting the very top of everything. It really bothers me.
Everything about the music industry takes away from you as an artist. They're always wondering what the next thing is: 'What do you have?' It's a very introverted process.
I'm not sure how we exist, as an artist, without country radio.
A fan's love for an artist is so deep, I know I will go whatever depths it takes to learn about people that I'm in love with.
Doing new stuff live is tough just simply because I pay my money, I stand in my seats, and I see the guys I love. And if I paid that ticket, there's a good chance that I'm there to hear the stuff that made me fall in love with 'em - we call it the "old stuff." And if an artist comes in town and dumps his entire new album on me, as a listener in a concert venue, it happens to miss out on the old stuff that I came there for. That doesn't work too well for me as a listener. Most of the time for concerts, it's the old stuff.
Most photographs are of life, what goes on in the world. And that's boring, generally. Life is banal, you know. Let's say that an artist deals with banality. I don't care what the discipline is.
For me, the music that resonates the most is one with a vision. I think that's what separates artists from entertainers. There are a lot of DJs and producers that make entertaining tracks that are effective in the club. They may make you feel nostalgic, or they may make you feel happy, or anxious or whatever - that can be entertaining, useful, and functional but there could be no vision.
I connect with techno way more than house. I find it frustrating people call me a house artist because I think my music in general is more in the tradition of techno. House is celebratory and extroverted. I don't connect with that sentiment.
Here's the thing, trust changes everything. Once you know what an artist can do, and you know their commitment level, it opens up the playbook hugely. I have worked with artists I really love, but they may have some small aspect that they hate drawing, or that they don't excel at, and that effectively takes that option off the table.
I wanted to be a "serious artist." Serious artists didn't tend to be funny. But that didn't get me a lot of attention. And just growing older, you can't help it, you take things less seriously.
I admire the artists that work everyday to attest things for themselves... In the act of transforming the objects of the everyday they transform the passage of time and analyze the economics and politics of the instruments of living.
I'm an artist. So if acting doesn't work out, which I hope it does, I'm probably going to go into graphic design or something like that.
There are many readers of the book, who don't know anything about the authors and the artists. There is more than one author. It doesn't matter, if you can't make the reader dive into the story and surround him with that environment and those characters. That's an experience that lasts longer than figuring out who did what. I think that's what makes our working relationship better, it helps us to make a book that feels unique and not like different voices.
The artist has to transcend a subject, or he loses the battle. The subject wins.
You worthy critics, or whatever you may call yourselves, are ashamed or afraid of the momentary and passing madness which is found in all real creators, the longer or shorter duration of which distinguishes the thinking artist from the dreamer. Hence your complaints of unfruitfulness, for you reject too soon and discriminate too severely.
